WTC

Skull and Bones 1

 

From: holderlin66
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:55 pm
Subject: Skull and Bones

Andrea wrote;

What "sensationalism" you're kidding about ? These are facts (AGAIN) and they fit very well just in the framework RS gave us!

Empowered thinking, Ethic and Spiritual thought were given as tools by Steiner to see into the current events of our time. We merely have to exercise our slumbering faculties. We merely have to continue to observe dysfunction, unconscious denial and deception either in the facts of "Heavens Gate" or Ahriman's church. Either in distortions of Michael Jackson or John Nash.

Then, we have to be able to look at the Owellian predicament that the U.S. brought to the 21st century world, through retarded, unconscious retro thinking that learned nothing, and saw nothing of the Immense landing of the Michael School in the lap of humanity in the 20th century. They witnessed the nightmare but not the dawning vision of how gods think in the Imagination and Imago of Man.

To measure the impact of the Saturn, Sun, Moon, Earth Science contributions to the Christ I Am and Earth, is to measure something greater than Joan of Arc preserving France and the Languge and culture of France. This was not merely an affair of one Archangel, but all, globally, the global family and community. The evolution of the solar system and the birth of a New Sun from the I Am impact of Golgotha for the Earth.

In Steiner we are dealing with the Core, the Central core of the Immortality of the human I that the whole world desires to understand. And since so many fail to understand destinies image, Barabbas was the denial and we have chosen denial over reality at every juncture. That is why the recent history of the entrance of Spiritual Science into humanity must not become a distortion of denial. Having Spiritualized Thinking plopped down in the middle of Germany has had mighty and reverberating, as well as disturbing effects through every level and layer of cultural life. It is a fact that suddenly the Spiritual World and Earthly history have collided and the collision was registered through the great WARS and the Nuclear bomb all the way to biological warfare and Star stealing cloning.

Finding the threads where visible history and invisible history have collided or where humanity sought to touch Light in the Nuclear bomb and believe this light, because it could be touched, and it could touch you, to death, was no different than the disciples who were stunned that the Master of Matter, etheric and Devachan chemical ethers could arise solid, unharmed before their eyes, and speak warmly to them; yet not act like some zombie with no control over their skeleton. This is more than Mortal business. This divides P.S. and Diana between New AGE vague dreams and dialectical materialism, all suffering from lack of Spiritualized and Empowered Thinking.

For prophecy and for Christ, preserving the Skeleton was conquering the very, photo, X-ray Negative Imagination of Man. Death as the skeleton that carried the model of the Phantom, and the skeleton that rises as the image of death, on poison bottles and the Skull and Bones club... leads us to Ahriman's camp of death. Understanding how the skeletal framework of the Zodiac, as the skeleton of man, was not to be broken, meant, Christ - Master of the Atomic Table, would not walk with a limp, however his palms and feet would still have the higher cosmic design code..

To understand the stigmatic design codes, as a framework of the wounds of spear, hands, feet and head.. reveals an inner educational story of how humanity approaches its higher education and conquers Death all the way down to the bones. Why do we pin butterflies to cork boards? They are displayed, mounted trophies of imprisoned Devachan Light.

The Skull and Bones club says more than Dottie has given thought to. It indicates clearly brotherhoods behind the Political life of our times and the Priests of the Church of the Unrisen Light acting to preserve fallen intellect, like Peter's. Each step of the way we have to build our own cognition by dipping into the source material, dipping our sop of bread into the same sop, or Grail Wisdom, or stream of Intelligence, where the gods wisdom, given to Man, fell from the sky into the Germanic structure of language and thought with the new breath of the Holy Ghost.

"Luke next proceeds with his narrative in the following terms:

"And as they thus spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you: it is I; be not afraid.23 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet."24 It is to this act, by which the Lord showed Himself after His resurrection, that John is also understood to refer when he discourses as follows: "Then, when it was late on the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

And when He had so said, He showed unto them His hands and His side."25 Thus, too, we may connect with these words of John certain matters which Luke reports, but which John Himself omits. For Luke continues in these terms: "And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And when He had eaten before them, He took what remained,26 and gave it unto them."27

Again, a passage which Luke omits, but which John presents, may next be connected with these words. It is to the following effect:

"Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."28 Once more, we may attach to the above section another which John has left out, but which Luke inserts. It runs thus: "And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.

Bradford concludes;

Indeed we have seen the only begotten Ahrimanic Light and have been convinced because Science has shown us that it is real, destructive, Omniscient and of such global might that man must fear it and the poison that it secretes. That only fools do not bow down to worship it and the power it represents and only fools can't see that with this light, hundreds of skeletons can be fried and x-rayed onto Walls as in Hiroshima. So what is the pettiness of one Human I AM in relation to this OMniscient Power? Believe in it, not the confused ethics of simple Jesus. And Steiner says, bite me, I'll show you the gods your rotten lying renegade servant of Man.

But those who have taken up the scent of the Holy Ghost have come to the new wafting breath of the Michael School with open hearts and minds. Therefore can they learn to see to have cognition and determine in themselves how to empower thought that penetrates reality. Therefore Andrea and those on this list are to be applauded in their efforts and disagreed with as discernment beckons. For we are sharing in the Extended World of the Logos and the Gods and must learn to find our way in the added dimension of Holy Ghost thinking.

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 6:58 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Skull and Bones

Bradford:

The Skull and Bones club says more than Dottie has given thought to. It indicates clearly brotherhoods behind the Political life of our times and the Priests of the Church of the Unrisen Light acting to preserve fallen intellect, like Peter's.

And you think I have not seen this because I agree not with your assumptions of the whole 9/11 scheme? Please Bradford, just because one does not agree nor come to the same conclusions does not mean they have not thought thoroughly through these type of things.

The idea that because I do not agree means I do not see the underworkings of the spiritual worlds. I do nothing but this moment in and moment out and still try to enthusiastically embrace my life and vision for it. No easy task as you know when the mind is consumed by other worldly things.

Bradford:

Each step of the way we have to build our own cognition by dipping into the source material, dipping our sop of bread into the same sop, or Grail Wisdom, or stream of Intelligence, where the gods wisdom, given to Man, fell from the sky into the Germanic structure of language and thought with the new breath of the Holy Ghost.

Pontificating because we do not see it the same as you. No matter of manipulation yanks my chain. My goal is freedom, with a capitol F', not jump on the bandwagon of those who share my antipathies and sympathies and can't we all just get along.

Bradford:

"Luke next proceeds with his narrative in the following terms:

"And as they thus spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you: it is I; be not afraid.23 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Now, stepping into the real thick manipulation points: you must be afraid, that's why you can't see what I can but that is okay I am going to help you see it my way'. Can't go there with you my friend. My need for Freedom is not being met by following others down the rabbit hole of a one way thinking on this subject. Just because it is a possibility in the world does not make it so.

Happy Monday,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:14 am
Subject: Re: Skull and Bones

Some quotes from Dottie to Bradford:

Please Bradford, just because one does not agree nor come to the same conclusions does not mean they have not thought thoroughly through these type of things.

The idea that because I do not agree means I do not see the underworkings of the spiritual worlds.

Pontificating because we do not see it the same as you.

Now, stepping into the real thick manipulation points: you must be afraid, that's why you can't see what I can but that is okay I am going to help you see it my way'.

Hey Dottie, ever notice this is exactly how they talk to the critics? We aren't "spiritual," we don't "see reality" the way anthroposophists do. Oh, perhaps we just haven't read all the material they have helpfully provided. Oh, we've read it and we don't agree? We must be "afraid" (or if we're not, we should be).

Diana

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:47 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Skull and Bones

Diana:

Hey Dottie, ever notice this is exactly how they talk to the critics?

Dear Diana, there is a big difference in this understanding. See, I DO look to see the whole. I get the critics and those who are conditioned to a certain world view want to see only what appeals to their already made views.

Now, life experiences have brought us to our world views. And that is why Dr. Steiners book POF is so important. It asks us to move past our conditioning to a sense free thinking, willing and feeling. And achieving this is freedom. And this is my goal for my self, my desire. So I can't get caught up in what you or Bradford or so and so thinks not even can I get caught up in what I think until I have vetted it thoroughly.

My experience of the just about the whole world is that we are aligned with our own personal world view. I want something more. I want truth.

So, the critics look to see what speaks to their own personal experiences and negate the rest. Its not a matter of really checking out all the facts and then laying them on the table to see what is really going on in regards to Dr. Steiners work. No, you have had a specific experience and you look for that which agrees with your specific insights that appeal to that experience in order to make sense of it. But then there is another side to the story and then there is the truth.

For me, when you are beholden to a certain thing because of your personal experiences you do the truth a disservice. But then again maybe not many people are looking for the truth of the matter as it exists outside themselves. Maybe they are. Left, right or center does not matter it is a point of view, your own. Don't want my own point of view according to the Matrix, I want the truth of that which exists outside all the hooks society has thrown up for us. It's the act of freeing ones mind that appeals to me but not at the expense of others.

Diana:

We aren't "spiritual," we don't "see reality" the way anthroposophists do.

Diana, it can not be helped that most of your group aligns itself with atheism, humanism and so forth. It seems to be the running theme over there. For me it is a so what until it becomes that you folks think you know better than those who have been studying this man for years. Your group negates the experiences because they do not believe in them. Your group negates the possibility that Dr. Steiner was speaking of a pre human time according to certain understandings and negates the idea that he said we are moving away from blood ties and so forth. You pick out one sentence, maybe sixteen for Peter, and make the rest of his works to mean such and such when in truth his works mean the opposite of what you state. But you don't know that because you see what you want to see and negate the rest. (I am not specifically speaking about you when I say you, I am speaking in general)

Diana

Oh, perhaps we just haven't read all the material they have helpfully provided.

No, its not that. You have read it from your own personal world view Diana. As have many of Steiner students. I found Dr. Steiners work to be astoundingly in sync with mine. You have not. It doesn't matter how much material you read, this is not to your personal liking nor agreement. And for this you are uable to read it for what it is: spiritual works that work past the human body and blood lines. He was speaking on all consciousnesses and how they moved in mankind from even before the human body. But you do not see it that way and it is not even credible for you. Okay. But again, like I said to Bradford and others that does not make you right. And it doesn't make you right either. Just because some can say the same thing you ascribe to Dr. Steiner does not make it his own teachings. His own teachings speak to the opposite of what you, Peter S and other like minded individuals have come to. And as I said to Andrea, that is fine, but that does not make it true. Where are your sympathies and antipathies getting in the way of ascertaining to a sense free thinking.

Diana:

Oh, we've read it and we don't agree? We must be "afraid" (or if we're not, we should be).

Yes, some can ascribe this to you and it doesn't make it true. I am one looking for truth and I believe that in this case of Dr. Steiners work being racist and anti-semitic and so forth misses wide of the mark. And if I am worth my salt it must not be that I find this to be true because of my afinity for Dr. Steiner. I work too hard to be taken out that easily. You can hold onto what you wish and I can't trust your thoughts on this because they are too tied to your personal minds experiences of what a thing means. And I feel the same way for any of my friends here on list and elsewhere who feel tied to a certain thing from an emotional hot or cold level.

Do you think your free in your thoughts on this subject of Dr. Steiner?

Hot hot hot in cali,
d

Studying Steiner for Years

...................................................................................................................................

From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:22 am
Subject: Re: Skull and Bones

Dottie wrote:

Dear Diana, there is a big difference in this understanding. See, I DO look to see the whole. I get the critics and those who are conditioned to a certain world view want to see only what appeals to their already made views.

No, I don't think you DO see the whole. You don't seem to hear it when critics explain about the many years in some cases that they/we looked at things with a positive orientation toward anthroposophy. I did not come to anthroposophy with an "already made" view, I had never heard of it before and I was totally receptive to studying it. This part, you don't seem to hear.

Now, life experiences have brought us to our world views.

Yes, Dottie, but therefore, on what basis can you conclude that your views of Dr. Steiner's are the correct ones? If you had had my life experiences, do you think you would see Steiner's views more negatively?

Diana, it can not be helped that most of your group aligns itself with atheism, humanism and so forth.

Dottie, I don't know who you mean by "my group." However, whether you mean people posting on the Waldorf critics mailing list, or you mean PLANS, with which I am not presently allied, and there are various other "groups" as well, worldwide, working on or discussing these issues, but applied to any one of them, your statement is incorrect. It is not the case that most of the people I know who have critical things to say about Waldorf or anthroposophy are atheists, or humanists. The opposite is the case. More of them hold some sort of spiritual worldview than not.

you folks think you know better than those who have been studying this man for years.

Well, in fact there is a growing number of people critical of Steiner who have been studying him for years, myself included.

Your group negates the experiences because they do not believe in them.

No (though again there is really no "my group"). There are people for whom the premises of anthroposophy are preposterous or offensive because they are atheists, or because they are Christians, or because they are Jewish, or because they are pagan. There are others to whom many of the fundamentals of anthroposophy are very appealing but whose experiences with anthroposophic projects such as Waldorf schools soured them on anthroposophy. For me personally, I generally judge any dogma or ideology by the results I can see. I saw a lot of inexcusable things, with people spouting, "Oh, you just don't understand Steiner."

Your group negates the experiences because they do not believe in them. Your group negates the possibility that Dr. Steiner was speaking of a pre human time according to certain understandings and negates the idea that he said we are moving away from blood ties and so forth.

I don't negate any of those things, personally.

You have read it from your own personal world view Diana.

Well, that's true, but it gets us nowhere, since you, of course, read it from your own personal world view, too. Again, I read Steiner very sympathetically for several years.

Diana:

Oh, we've read it and we don't agree? We must be "afraid" (or if we're not, we should be).

Yes, some can ascribe this to you and it doesn't make it true.

I think almost always, Dottie, when someone jeers at you that you must be afraid, they are being a bully and hoping to make you afraid.

Do you think your free in your thoughts on this subject of Dr. Steiner?

No, certainly not. I'm not really sure about the idea of being "free" in thought at all. I generally suspect it is a self-delusion. ("Sense-free" thinking, in particular, strikes me as a very dangerous trap. These things are ideologies. There's no free lunch.)

I wouldn't really know if there are in fact individuals who are "free in thought." If there are, I sincerely doubt they spend much time exhorting others to be free in thought. Perhaps I am not explaining that very well, but I am virtually certain that, in practice, those two things are usually incompatible.

Diana

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:20 am
Subject: Re: Skull and Bones

holderlin

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

"Then said Jesus to
them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so
send I you.

And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

Dear Harvey or Danny - Anyone;

Given the stunning embodiment of a thing, a physical form, the lungs and air, filled with Holy Ghost substance, so that by breath, I mean the image of what exactly this figure was, was there. Condensed, harmonically gathered from the grand cosmic imagination, Master of any atomic table, but filled, not with air that is normal air, but 'air freshener' that tingled right down to the karma of the disciples and allowed them a pre-taste of the Tongues of flame as Empowered, Spiritualized thinking, replacing Archangelic language divisions. What filled the room when the Resurrected One breathed out within the space of the room?

Surely we can understand the Science of the Christ contrasted against the shuddering show of nuclear blast. Now there stood before the disciples, to touch, and to hold and yet what was really the flowing substance of this gathering of matter before their eyes? Archangel, Exusai and Thrones... Father -Son and Holy Ghost... Father of matter, movement of the soul and planets - language of thought as Archangelic Holy Ghost community of Ideas seen in the thoughts of others and Karma of the Individual Angels in the disciples, feeling the full impact of the New Breath from the height of the Thrones. Creation had new air in its sails, (" Lots of Love in that Room" -) Gee, He can come to my party and blow in all the balloons. Let Him perform mouth to mouth on poor Peter S. Dialectical Materialism would shrivel like a dried moth.

And arrives for us now, in our time, this condensed dose of all the Love that the Michael School could condense into - not a League of Nations allah Woodrow Wilson, but a Thinking Community, a U.N. of the Holy Ghost. A higher bridge to unite Archangelic communities of humanity, not alienate them and enslave them or cleanse them from the face of the earth as Monsters acting as demonic Archangels, loading trains with bodies as the final betrayal of Archangels crucifixion in the Wills of Men.

Because once a human being had become a god, the demons could engineer a nation as infected will to become demon mimics.

If this thinking trickle of Spiritual Science could so illuminate one human being, Steiner, what might it do if the trickle became a flood of Conscious Living Brotherhood? What an inrush of Life would arise. And this dear fellows, are the ropes we are tangled in and this is no silly retarded movie, "A Mighty Wind".. it mocks what a Mighty Wind is here.

Exercising Cognition

...................................................................................................................................

 

From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Skull and Bones

Dottie:

Dear Diana, there is a big difference in this understanding. See, I DO look to see the whole. I get the critics and those who are conditioned to a certain world view want to see only what appeals to their already made views.

Diana:

No, I don't think you DO see the whole.

Hey Diana, I don't know why the DO is capatalized in the sentence. I did not do that to make a point. So, my point as far as I am trying to express is that I feel the critics only look at certain points that look to their own understandings. And that seems self evident to me when reading your words and that of the critics. It seems to me that you do not add 1 + 1 and get two. You seem to add 1+1 and get 1.

So, not meaning to say I see the whole and you do not. More meaning I am open to both sides and it does not seem to me that you or the critics do this. It feels conditioned by your own personal life views versus a contemplation of the whole enchilada.

Diana:

You don't seem to hear it when critics explain about the many years in some cases that they/we looked at things with a positive orientation toward anthroposophy.

No, I do hear it. I have no issue with the critics and their personal experiences of a thing. Where I do take issue is where they decide to start discerning on a thing they are not interested in: spiritual understandings of our every day lives and how it impacts today tomorrow and yesteryear.

We are already aware that many in this group believe the critics have some very valid points. Dr. Steiner as a racist is not one of them.

Diana:

I did not come to anthroposophy with an "already made" view, I had never heard of it before and I was totally receptive to studying it. This part, you don't seem to hear.

Diana, I am taking the heat out of this because I think we started off on the wrong footing with my DO capitalized. Not intentional but a pretty good thing for me to look at inside to see if somehow that is what I believe in those exact terms.

Anywho, it seems to me that you felt snookered as to not having the bigger picture. And it does seem to me that some of these schools are not giving the bigger picture. And I think it is important.

As far as taking it further and reading Dr. Steiner to be racist in his views I feel very strongly that you are only taking in what you want to read and not the intent of his works. It's kind of like the post that started this whole thing. Somehow there is all this other evidence but only the part that applies to their specific world view seems to be operating or at least so it seems to me. And that is how I view your ongoing arguments about Dr. Steiner being a racist.

Diana:

Yes, Dottie, but therefore, on what basis can you conclude that your views of Dr. Steiner's are the correct ones?

I am not saying Dr. Steiners views are the correct ones. What I have been able to see is that by getting away from blood and family and national ties my love for people and my self has increased. I have found that through contemplation of where a thought comes from I am able to begin realizing how conditioned my thoughts were and how 'in the matrix' I really am and was by the happenings of others and their own sympathies and antipathies.

Dr. Steiners work has helped me to stand firm in the idea that we must see beyond borders and blood ties. We must see past all that binds us to any one group of people. These are the exact opposites of what Staudenamier, you and the critics are saying. So, if I have to wonder well why is it that I can sense this growth towards more inclusivity through my contemplation of Dr. Steiners work, and this other small group that feels decieved by some teachers at a Waldorf school feel differently. Can it be true that Dr. Steiners work is racist I have to ask my self. And then I read more and more and realize that his work does indeed speak to the opposite of a few phrases taken out of a lecture and much of its context to say 'yes he is a racist'. So, to only look at the one paragraph and negate all that comes with it is telling not even a quarter of the story Diana.

Diana:

If you had had my life experiences, do you think you would see Steiner's views more negatively?

Maybe I don't know. I don't know what your lifes experiences were other than something to do with having it pushed down your throat a bit. That has not happened to me. I went to church because Mom had me and my little sisters walk together on Sundays and we bought candy.

I never had it pushed on me and actually used to wonder for most of my life if there was a God and what was God and how can he get me what I want and why is he holding me back and so forth. But I always knew there was a Christ. I was seven when I asked Jesus in my life and I cried my heart out. And I didn't even know why. Someone said 'hey wanna accept Jesus into your life' and I said 'okay'. I do not even think I knew what that was at the time I was so unthinking and just loving. But man I cried a river and everyone was looking at me as to what was wrong with me. And they left the room and I could not stop crying. Don't think Mom ever knew this.

So, my trip was always questioning if there was one and there never were any conversations with others about Jesus or whathave you.

I think we both have a similar need not to be fooled and we do not like others to tell us what to do nor to take our choice away. And I can respect that. That is why when I saw the DO capitalized I was like 'uhoh this is not going to be a pleasent response:) for if it was me reading those words directed at me I would probably respond very similar as you did.

I think if I had yours or Sharons experiences I would not be too high on Waldorf. But in who I am with my personal life experiences I do not know if I would have gone where you two have with reading him to be racist. But then again I do not know how old you are. People think these things do not matter but I do. With time comes more reflection and sometimes we can see where our experiences yank our chains so to speak. And then sometimes we can't and just believe what we think is true and not neccessarily because it is but because we think it to be so.

Diana:

Dottie, I don't know who you mean by "my group."

Yeah, we kind of react the same way to our freedoms being taken away in a sense. It's funny now reading you after having taken this matrix workshop and seeing the things that would set me off naturally.

Looking at that you primarily come from the critics group that I look and that is how we met that I look at you from a certain point of departure.

Diana:

However, whether you mean people posting on the Waldorf critics mailing list, or you mean PLANS, with which I am not presently allied, and there are various other "groups" as well, worldwide, working on or discussing these issues, but applied to any one of them, your statement is incorrect.

I agree with you one hundred percent. I will not make the mistake again. Hopefully:) and don't mind being called on it.

Diana:

Well, in fact there is a growing number of people critical of Steiner who have been studying him for years, myself included.

That feels like a false statement Diana. Are you saying you still study Steiner or were actively studying him recently and for your own personal growth and came to disagree with him. Or did you study because you put your child in a Waldorf school and that was part of the program?

People who have been studying him for years and criticize him is kind of far fetched in my thought. Studying to find something wrong is not studying Diana. You either get him or you don't want to have anything to do with him and his far out thoughts. Not really a case of slowly finding out he is a racist or whathave you. I'd find that really hard to believe as his works speak to the opposite of this.

Diana:

No (though again there is really no "my group").

Got it.

Diana:

There are people for whom the premises of anthroposophy are preposterous or offensive because they are atheists, or because they are Christians, or because they are Jewish, or because they are pagan.

Offensive I don't know about but preposterous I can understand. Racist, no Diana. Nazi ideology, no Diana. Preposterous okay. He is kind of far out to the mainstream and I can understand why. But not because he is a racist nor that he was teaching a racist ideology. That is not correct Diana. Just like it is not correct we shot down 93 because the good guys were winning.

Diana:

I saw a lot of inexcusable things, with people spouting, "Oh, you just don't understand Steiner."

What did you see Diana? And how is it different, better or worse than public schools?

Diana:

No, certainly not. I'm not really sure about the idea of being "free" in thought at all. I generally suspect it is a self-delusion. ("Sense-free" thinking, in particular, strikes me as a very dangerous trap. These things are ideologies. There's no free lunch.)

Well, I think from how you react on this list you are looking for freedom of thinking. The point would be to see what or who your thinking is aligned to or with. And for me I guess it is real important that I am aware of why I am saying or thinking or doing the things I am. Is it from someone elses thought or is it my own. Kind of like in grade school a girl says 'oh don't talk to her she's mean' and so I dont' talk to her. I got tired of listening to what other said and then my reactions of surrendering my self or maybe submitting my self to that persons idea of what was right and wrong. It kept dawning on me that others always expected me to do or think or say a certain thing. And it was always to line up with their way of thinking. I decided somewhere along the line no matter how much I loved a person nor how much I admired them I needed to be independant of their thinking. I needed to know my self.

Diana:

I wouldn't really know if there are in fact individuals who are "free in thought."

I do not think there are many. Well, at least I have not met any. I see lots of people, including my self, that are trying to figure this thing out. We are trying to analize or contemplate why we think the way we do in our everyday lives. We try to think on what is driving us so that we can be consciously aware of why we think the way we think and why we do the things we do. So, I am not one of them who is free in thought but I do think it a worthy path to walk.

Diana:

If there are, I sincerely doubt they spend much time exhorting others to be free in thought.

I don't think they would try to exhort rather try to inspire others to be aware of looking at why they do the things they do and think the way they think. And that is what the heart of Dr. Steiners work is for me. The Christ I always had and looked to understand but to seperate it from what others have said is a great task. I was raised to believe that all the people that did not believe in Christ were going to hell. All other religions were cults and only those who believe in Christ were good people. And later on that it was my duty to make people believe in Christ come hell or high water. So, I had a lot of undoing to do in my thinking and parting what is real and what is not and what is important and what is not. And then why do people do what they do and why do people think the way they do as well. And I did not want to be like everyone else on the gravey train to nowhere in my mind.

I trust you Diana, and I know your experiences with Waldorf were hurtful. It doesn't however make you right on these other issues regarding race.

Sincerely,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 4:45 pm
Subject: PLANS' Cosmic Mission (was: Skull and Bones)

At 19:22 29.03.2004, Diana wrote:

There are people for whom the premises of anthroposophy are preposterous or offensive because they are atheists, or because they are Christians, or because they are Jewish, or because they are pagan.

Christians find paganism and atheism preposterous or offensive, atheists and pagans find Christianity offensive and so on and so on. But just like neo-Nazis in Sweden sported black Muslims in their midst united by a hatred of Jews, so are atheists and Christian fundies united in their hatred against Anthroposophists.

PLANS has a mission, just like the starship Enterprise. It spells it out on the website:

PLANS Mission Statement

People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools will:

1. Provide parents, teachers, and school boards with views of Waldorf education from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner.

2. Expose the illegality of public funding for Waldorf school programs in the US.

3. Litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the US.

There is nothing wrong with these three points. Nothing at all. I commend them. But it's not honest, because the mission practiced by PLANS involves a lot more than the above, so I'm recommending at least four more points:

4. Bust the Anthroposophical Movement by proving it to be a racist cult.

5. Discredit Rudolf Steiner by any means possible: Racism, sexual magic, quackery, trickery, dishonesty, sado-masochism, cruelty, plus anything else that sounds good, and if it doesn't stick, keep repeating it until it does. Dig through his 6000 lectures and select the most outrageous sentences, making sure that our target audience does not see those other sentences of his that put him in a better light.

6. Collect Waldorf horror stories big and small from all over the world. Tell them over and over and quote those racist statements as often as possible in between.

7. Compare Anthroposophy to extreme right wing racist militant religious movements as often as possible, for instance by mentioning such movements ever so often in between criticism of Anthroposophy.

Only a suggestion, for more openness and honesty.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

Skull and Bones 2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

March/April 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind